The argument he makes hinges on the empirical suffering of wild animals vs. domestic. As he admits, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that wild suff

The argument he makes hinges on the empirical suffering of wild animals vs. domestic. As he admits, there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that wild suffering is indeed greater, so the case is not strong. That said, I do happen to identify with the sort of vegetarian logic here. If there were strong evidence that wild animal suffering were much greater than domestic, that would be very important to me. So I agree with his conclusion that more research into the lives of wild (and domestic) animals should be a priority. However, given what I know of the literal sausage factory that is industrialized food production, I fear the suffering of domestic animals is very great, and unlikely to be topped.